Then, as said, imo a little buff to the AoE radius of those early/mid game mortar units could be perfectly enough. Just to emphasize on the explosive splash damage versus packs of infantry.

It could force the player to split his infantry groups and attack from several directions. And isolated little groups of infantry units can be countered with infantry, snipers and mobile vehicles/air units way more easily. It's a win/win and it could advantage cool tactics on the field.

That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.

my honest feeling i dont like it , mortar needs a radius and damage buff , infantry needs hard counter , once u fix this annoying issue , the gameplay will be way more dynamic all different type of units must be used , not like it is now spam rax spam infantry from begining to end

So I made a thread about possible solutions to this issue, so I'd like to hear your guys' opinions about it. To summarize, the three suggestions I made were 1. Reduce amount of infantry carried in carriers (acce, namer, vextra, etc.) 2. Increase damage/radius of t1 artillery and make the stronger against infantry in buildings(3. Give each faction a barracks upgrade like Cartel atound T2 to make barracks buildable outside of your base/extractor)

As late game artillery is already quite strong against infantry in most cases I feel like the main issue stemms from the early access to mass infantry throughout the entire map. If the infantry is less widespread, then it will allow for the counters to said infantry to be more useful.

my honest feeling i dont like it , mortar needs a radius and damage buff , infantry needs hard counter , once u fix this annoying issue , the gameplay will be way more dynamic all different type of units must be used , not like it is now spam rax spam infantry from begining to end

my honest feeling i dont like it , mortar needs a radius and damage buff , infantry needs hard counter , once u fix this annoying issue , the gameplay will be way more dynamic all different type of units must be used , not like it is now spam rax spam infantry from begining to end

We should have Marines/felins/contractors as a hard Counter, well but javelins work far better.

Maybe those 3 units could have a speed increase so they can close faster with enemy rocket infantry. It also makes sense that infantry carrying heavy launchers would move slower than those only with rifles.

my honest feeling i dont like it , mortar needs a radius and damage buff , infantry needs hard counter , once u fix this annoying issue , the gameplay will be way more dynamic all different type of units must be used , not like it is now spam rax spam infantry from begining to end

We should have Marines/felins/contractors as a hard Counter, well but javelins work far better.

Maybe those 3 units could have a speed increase so they can close faster with enemy rocket infantry. It also makes sense that infantry carrying heavy launchers would move slower than those only with rifles.

Yes.

Btw i just wanted to say, that i did like the changes that they did it in the last patch it was a step into the right direction.

I guess it is now time mortar units and CIWS on AA units get a pass.And especially that white phosphorous upgrade, which is almost a bug in how it works so randomly in pushing infantry out of buildings.

Or simply prevent ATGMs from locking on and firing at infantry (but let them fire at buildings, against garrisoned units). Could solve all this, being realistic, while creating a new and very interesting layer of short counter ranges with infantry units or versus infantry units...

Then a simple and little price increase for ATGMs (all ATGM units, or some NLOS kind of upgrades) could complete the picture.

Where could it fail?

- basic infantry vs basic infantry.- basic infantry versus launchers.- snipers vs all infantry.- mortars and grenadiers vs all infantry.- ATGM launchers vs vehicles. the case of the Viper (more generally unguided rockets, logically, can fire at infantry) could be discussed. we'd have to protect those ATGM infantry units with other units which is realistic. Also it could prevent the basic spams as well...- AA infantry launchers versus air units. could work the same way.

In conclusion, a new layer of interesting counters and possible firing ranges...Honestly Eugen, what could be the problem with this? Vehicles being too easy targets for the ATGMs? You'd just have to raise the ATGMs unit prices...To my sense the last patch was a perfect first step in order to go in that direction...NLOS Guardians, for example, being too easy targets for the infantry AA launchers, the Grenadiers or even the Riflemen? Raise their firing range with autocanons, gatlings and rockets, it could only bring some realism and solve the short range problem with choppers armaments (and also the weird differences between AA ranges against choppers/aircrafts)...The Spike LR Puma for example would have to switch to another target in missile range, to switch to autocanons if infantry is in range, or simply to be microed in order to protect it from infantry ATGMs...Other points about counter ranges could be solved with only balance tweaks...

please Eugen, could you share your position on this point, and explain us why it could be a balance breaker?

Last edited by Megiddo on Wed 20 Apr 2016 15:07, edited 2 times in total.

That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.